Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat weblog has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is David Brophy, Birgit Clark, Merpel, Jeremy Phillips, Eleonora Rosati, Darren Smyth, Annsley Merelle Ward and Neil J. Wilkof. You're welcome to read, post comments and participate in our community. You can email the Kats here

For the half-year to 30 June 2015, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Suleman Ali, Tom Ohta and Valentina Torelli.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Thursday, 19 October 2006

The Court of First Instance (CFI) of the European Communities dismissed Bitburger's appeal in the keenly-contested non-contest in Joined Cases T‑350/04 to T‑352/04, Bitburger Brauerei Th. Simon GmbH v OHIM, Anheuser-Busch, Inc, another case which, in the IPKat's opinion, should never have been allowed to waste the CFI's time.

Anheuser-Busch applied to register as Community trade marks (CTMs) for beer (i) the word BUD and (ii) the two figurative signs that appear at the top of this post (for which registration in Classes 16 and 25 were also made, to cover paper and clothing). Bitburger opposed, citing a selection of earlier German and CTM marks and applications that featured the word "Bit" (all depicted here). Bitburger considered that, in view of the similarity/identity of the marks and the similarity/identity of the brewers' respective products, there was a likelihood of confusion of the relevant public. A further allegation was that, given the reputation of the Bitburger marks, Anheuser-Busch's use of its own marks, without due cause, would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

The Opposition Division rejected Bitburger's opposition. First, it transpired that some of its allegedly earlier marks had the same filing date as Anheuser-Busch's BUD sign - 1 April 1996 - and were not therefore anterior. Apart from that, evidence of use of Bitburger's marks indicated that they were used for only a narrow selection of goods. Bearing that in mind, and also the fact that Bitburger's marks were not similar to Anheuser-Busch's, the opposition could not succeed even if Bitburger's marks were highly distinctive in Germany on account of their use. The Board of Appeal agreed and Bitburger then appealed to the CFI.

The CFI dismissed the appeal. This is not so much a case of "Roll out the barrel", the IPKat says, as an example of an opponent scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments to justify the unjustifiable. Merpel agrees. Given the degree of loyalty that most beer-drinkers show towards their favourite brands, it would take several litres of either party's product before their brains would be so befuddled as to confuse the one with the other.

IP Review - CPA's quarterly intellectual property love-in, ever improving and now up to issue 16, has just been published. Features include

* a review of the licensing strategy of Marvel Entertainment, Inc (while Marvel owns rights to the Incredible Hulk, this piece is certainly not the Incredible Bulk - it's just seven paragraphs from top to toe);

The IPKat's sidebar contents

Want to complain?If you feel that you have been unfairly prevented from posting a comment on one of this weblog's features, here's what you can do about it

The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for youThe IPKat lists his 'family' of IP blogs, some of which focus on specific rights, geographical zones, markets or interests

How many page-views?See how many times the pages of the IPKat weblog have been purr-viewed

The Kat that tweetsToo short to blog? Some news and views are still worth airing, thanks to Twitter

Want to receive the IPKat weblog by email?You can get each post, or a digest, sent direct to your favourite mailbox

Not just any old IPKatEvery so often, this feline creeps into the limelight

The IPKat's RSS feeding arrangementsFeedburner and all those other things ...

What you've been sayingHere are the most recent readers' comments on the IPKat's posts

The IPKat's Greatest Hits!Here are the five posts on the IPKat's weblog that have received the most attention from readers over the past 30 days

Has the Kat got your tongue?Some translation facilities for readers whose first language is not English, or who are just plain masochistic

Creative Commons licenceYou too can make use of this blog's contents, if you follow the rules

The IPKat ArchiveAncient posts, going back to June 2003

Want to complain?

If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation -- essentially that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should be relevant to the blogpost on which they purport to comment.

If you feel that your comment should have been moderated, please email the IPKat at theipkat@gmail.com and let him know, since it may be that your comment has been misdirected into the Blogger software's Spam file.

In the event that there has been no software malfunction and that your post has been rejected, if you want to appeal against this decision please contact either (i) Dr Danny Friedmann of theIP Dragonweblog (ipdragon@gmail.com) or (ii) Professor Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O weblog (dcrouch@patentlyo.com). Danny or Dennis will review your complaint, preserving the confidentiality of your identity and will let both you and us know whether your complaint is justified.

If your complaint relates to bias or distortion, the IPKat suggests that you contact him initially, bearing in mind that he and Merpel are generally willing to host pieces by guest contributors even when their opinions are at odds with those of this blog's contributors.